Politics
Why Voting for Hillary Now is Bad for the Democratic Party
An Open Letter to Voters in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont
This letter only applies to those who actually care about the Democratic Party winning in November. If the thought of McCain taking office doesn’t bother you, then you’re probably not going to be swayed much by my argument.
Here’s the deal: Barack Obama currently has a 155 lead over Hillary Clinton in earned delegates, that is delegates won in primaries and caucuses. Even with superdelegates in the mix, he leads by about 110. For Hillary Clinton to just catch up to him, she’d have to win all remaining contests by huge margins, which is unlikely in this very tight race. Furthermore, it’s also next to impossible for either candidate to win the number of delegates required to win the nomination at this point (2025) without the help of superdelegates.
This is why Tuesday is an important day. Most people believe that if Hillary Clinton loses Texas and Ohio, she will drop out of the race. That’s the best scenario for the Party, no matter which candidate you favor, and here’s why: the alternative scenario is that she wins both states, which means that this long, drawn-out race will continue, in all likelihood, into August.
Both candidates will go into the convention with convincing arguments as to why they should be the nominee. Barack Obama will have a strong argument, saying he won more states, and he will likely still be ahead in earned delegates. Hillary Clinton will have an equally strong argument, saying she won the “big” states, even though she’ll still be behind in delegates. The superdelegates will have a tough decision to make, and voters on both sides will be upset no matter which candidate the superdelegates ultimately choose. And there won’t be that much time for feelings–or the party–to mend before voters go to the polls in November. Even worse, the constant back and forth, demands for debates (even though they’ve already rehashed the minutiae of each issue ad nauseum), and petty fighting will escalate and continue until Puerto Rico votes on June 7th.
At this point, voting for Hillary Clinton won’t make her the frontrunner; all it will do is prolong this race and keep us divided while allowing the Republican party to solidify its support around John McCain. Ultimately, there isn’t much difference between Obama and Hillary when it comes to the issues; this is evident in the fact that their latest argument was over whether the word “reject” was stronger than the word “denounce.” If you’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton and want to see a Democrat take the White House in 2009, you should put your affections aside for the moment and vote for the frontrunner, Barack Obama, so that we can end this race and start to focus on the real battle against McCain and the GOP.
Discussion
22 comments for “Why Voting for Hillary Now is Bad for the Democratic Party”
Post a comment
Categories
Excellent post. I’m all for party loyalty. It seems to be that McCain is qiming to be a one term president. That is a huge thing to trump against him. The thing is the Clinton, I dont have the confidence that they will get behind Obama and not undermine his chances.
Wow, I guess we will NEVER run out of excuses not to vote for a female leader.
expat-dem: this has nothing to do with gender for me. I am a woman, after all. Those who want Hillary to win solely because she’s a woman neglect the essence of the victory of the women’s rights movement: that we be judged NOT based on our gender but as individuals.
I am a supporter of Barack Obama because I believe he’s the better individual to lead my country.
But that’s not what my post was about; it was about the current state of the race and the reality that Hillary really can’t catch up in earned delegates, so Dems who care about the party’s chances in November should vote for Barack so that the race can end and we can unite.
I disagree completely.
Heck, when you view things thru a different lens, Hillary is either tied in delegates with Obama, or is leading if you value what the voters in Michigan did.
That may sound unconventional, but here is a look through that lens:
http://vatovn.blogspot.com/2008/03/no-delegate-lead-for-obama.html
If Obama were a woman his presidential bid would be a joke… he would have been told to roll over and give up when he first mentioned it - just as Hillary is being asked to do now.
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/hillary_clinton_is_too
Hey Preya, as far as I could remember, weren’t you a republican?
Obama is ahead in the popular vote and delegate count. Florida and Michigan were not in play–you can’t change the rules after the game’s already been started.
Edwards and Obama did not even have their names on the ballot in Michigan. In fact, 40% voted UNCOMMITTED, which in effect, was a vote AGAINST Clinton. It says a lot about the kind of person she is that she would try to overturn that in her favor after the fact. This is why so many people dislike her; she will say and do anything to win. In any case, he’s still ahead in delegates if you count in Florida and Michigan.
As for the gender thing, I would vote for Clinton if I thought she was a genuine, sincere person. She’s not. Period. I know a lot of women who are genuine, intelligent people who I would love to see lead this country. Hillary Clinton is not one of them. Where do feminists get off telling us that all women MUST vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman? What if it goes against our conscience? Being a woman doesn’t make up for the fact that she’s divisive and uninspiring. In addition, if the only reason people are voting for Obama is because he’s a man, if he is really “just a joke” in every other way, then why don’t I feel as inspired and passionate about voting for McCain? There’s a lot more to Obama than the simple fact that he’s a man. Clinton likes to say how much experience she has, all the while saying that Obama just has “one speech,” which is disingenuous because it discounts all of the work Obama did as an organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional professor, state senator, and US senator; and second, it shows that she doesn’t care about the Democrats winning in November because she’s willing to handover soundbytes to the Republicans if Obama is the nominee.
X–(is that you, Jonathan?)–I was/am a libertarian. I had a “proud to be a libertarian” sticker on my car until I recently covered it up with an Obama ‘08 sticker! Obama transcends these divisions for me. When I hear him, I feel inspired and hopeful about my country. I value his intelligence, character, and judgment. This matters more to me right now than agreeing on every single issue. We need change; we need to come together as a country. I think a lot of people feel this way in this election!
I wasn’t saying Obama IS a joke, I was saying people find it incredibly easy to discredit and dislike powerful women. HRC is “divisive” because some people irrationally despise her. She is “uninspiring” because people feel more comfortable being led by a man. Everyone says that they are essentially the same on the issues… it is sad that so much is at stake and “charisma” could decide the election.
Being a member of a certain group doesn’t exempt you from prejudice against that group (just ask Larry Craig).
Last I checked, 40% doesn’t win an election - so 40% uncommitted (which is Edwards + Obama) still means that she won even if one is being generous and say that 40& just backs one opposition candidate.
All I know is she has taken down most of the big states and people are suggesting she should withdraw. I don’t get that.
At one point, Obama was behind in the delegate count (by a lot) and no one was suggesting he withdraw.
yeah but 40% voted for NO ONE rather than vote for her.
And to expat-dem–sorry, I don’t think my dislike for her is irrational. She’s given me plenty of reason after this campaign. My mom actually liked Clinton before this thing started. There might be some truth in what you’re saying (just as racism might be why some are not voting for Obama), but that doesn’t mean that people don’t have legitimate reasons for not liking her. She’s insincere. Please don’t assume things about why I’m not for Hillary Clinton
I was willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt, not really knowing much about her views. After following this race closely, though, she’s really turned me of by saying and doing anything to win, as you observed. It seems that she will stop at NOTHING to get nominated, and changes her personality - or the nomination rules - to suit her needs for the moment. This is precisely what has caused me to lose trust in her after so many months of watching the campaigns.
Unfortunately, the race is going to drag on after yesterday… but I hope Barack still pulls it off.
I think voting for someone because of race, or sex is extremely amature. I think Americans have shown that race, and sex doesn’t matter anymore. Look at how many people came out to vote. They are insprired by hope for a change, not for a racial reason. I am a woman, and I will not vote for HRC because I don’t trust her. There are many reasons, but if her character were that of Benazir Bhutto, or many other strong honest women politicians, she would get my vote. However with her decisions and recent behavior, she will not get my vote.
One more thing. Just think about why a lot of republicans are hoping HRC wins???? It’s because they know that they will be able to beat her in the election. Do you want feminist pride to get in the way of a chance at the white house.
To weigh in briefly on two debates here:
1) Is it sexist to not support Hillary? No. The same way it is not racist to not support Obama. Expat-dem makes a solid point that some people have rejected Hillary as divisive and power-hungry because of her assertiveness in a male dominated arena, if that is the whole of one’s opposition to Hillary that is unfortunate. This small minded attitude does not entitle Hillary to support though, being the victim of prejudice is not the same thing as winning support or earning respect.
Some people feel strongly and legitimately that Hillary has won their support and deserves their abiding respect and energy, but that is a personal choice. All candidates deserve respect both as human beings and public servants, but this respect is often stretched (if not broken) by Hillary’s campaign tactics, which many of us do not respond well to.
Hillary’s approach is also part of a democratic legacy that many of us have never been a part of, or have rejected. She has a way of conducting herself as a person and as a politician that some of us find distasteful, and politics is governing as well as making policy. So, while there are similarities between Obama and Clinton on broad policy positions, the ‘how’ of their plans, their respective approach to public life are very different. Some of us embrace Obama’s hopeful and inclusive politics, while still being able to respect Clinton’s accomplishments and historic run for the presidency.
2) Is Hillary done? Clearly, No. But the Clinton campaign is well aware of the fact that they will not surpass Obama in the delegate count, and it will take a huge amount of good fortune to even catch him. She would have to win every state by large margins, it’s possible but very unlikely, especially given Obama’s support in many upcoming elections. That said, if Obama wants to end the contest he must convincingly win in Pennsylvania, which will be very tough.
Because of the math the Clinton campaign has a two pronged strategy. They are: Seat delegates in Michigan and Florida, and win the battle of the Super-delegates. She needs those to win, and she knows it. It is an indication of her acumen (or guile?) that her campaign made sure it was on the ballot in Michigan and that they did a little bit of campaigning/advertising in Florida. She knew they could be important.
The problem with seating the delegates from Michigan and Florida is two fold. 1) The party stripped the delegates, not the candidates and there was an agreement not to campaign in those primaries. Why should Clinton be rewarded for bending the rules (or at least stretching the spirit if not the letter of the rules)? 2) The second major issue is that she had a huge advantage in both states because there was no campaigning. Given her standing in the party and the national consciousness from the beginning, every other candidate has been running an insurgent campaign. Therefore, seating the stripped delegates gives an unfair advantage to candidate after the fact. To seat the delegates as they stand would be to open a fissure in the democratic party and alienate many of us who are cautious in our embrace of the party.
The reasonable options are 1) to leave the delegates stripped, which is not as bad as it sounds. While those democratic voters were denied their vote, their vote cannot be seen as representative as the other candidates were both lesser known and more faithful to the rules. The 2) other option is to re-run the primaries, which is both expensive to the states involved and would not necessarily help either campaign as it would extend the race and probably only reinforce the existing split. Either of these would be fair, but Hillary cannot legitimately count those delegates as her own, and she’s knows. She’s playing a dishonest game in trying to get them seated.
On the super delegate issue… if the super delegates overturn a significant Obama advantage that will also put a steak in the heart of a resurgent democratic party. If the delegate count is a toss-up? Well, things will get very ugly and the general election could be in the hands of the republicans before the democrats get out of the gate. But it is important to point out that Hillary is a long way from being able to make that challenge. Hillary’s wins in big states do not mean she should be the presumptive nominee, we have to consider the margins of victory, the delegate count and the popular vote when assessing who is the people’s choice. What makes Obama’s position so strong is the string of 11 very commanding victories in a number of small states.
Clinton is not out, but let’s not pretend the road ahead of her is easier than it is, serious challenges lay ahead for her. Not the least of which is deciding how to fight for the nomination.
Michigan and Florida are not relevant for delegate counts.
As for the 40% who voted against HRC- doesn’t matter. The DNC rules committee decided last year that any state having their primary event earlier than Feb 5 would not be seated. HRC supported that then. She should support it now.
It’s nice when a problem has a mathemeatical solution. 2+2=4 always has- always will.
Here’s the math
The most likely outcome of yesterday’s elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 pledged delegates, and Obama gained 183. (IT’s going to tak e some time for the TX caucus delegates to get finalized)
That’s a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted yesterday.
More math
There are several delegate calculators on the web. I like this one:http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/
Make whatever assumptions you want- it’s hard to come up with a plausible scenario where HRC catches up in pledge d delegates. Likewise, it’s hard to come up with any way for either candidate to get to the magic number.
So it will be up to the super delegates. They should do their job and choose the best candidate for the party- most electable candidate.
Allison, M, and Joe–thanks for the thoughtful comments:) And Allison–you should meet my sister and me in Wyoming! Obama is speaking in Laramie on Friday evening. TCKs for Obama!
“I was/am a libertarian. I had a “proud to be a libertarian” sticker on my car until I recently covered it up with an Obama ‘08 sticker!”
Did Obama vote against the Patriot act, Homegrown Terrorist act, Internet Regulation Acts, Provisional funding for Iraq bills ???
I see how Dems like Obama he has their views and a fresh face but to go from a libertarian to Obama ?
Yup. My rationale is in the rest of the quote, the part you left out:
Obama transcends these divisions for me. When I hear him, I feel inspired and hopeful about my country. I value his intelligence, character, and judgment. This matters more to me right now than agreeing on every single issue. We need change; we need to come together as a country. I think a lot of people feel this way in this election!
And besides, people change. We learn; we grow; we mature in our thinking and beliefs. Hopefully. Reading his book, The Audacity of Hope, helped reshape my political beliefs. So, I feel no guilt for supporting Obama for President 100%.
I agree with inHanoi, “Did Obama vote against the Patriot act, Homegrown Terrorist act, Internet Regulation Acts, Provisional funding for Iraq bills ???” Obama decision and judgment would jeopardize national security.
I am a minority and a first-generation immigrant and would like nothing more than to have a president of the United States from minority ethnic background like Obama(not counting his white mother),so we as Americans can prove to the world of how far we have come as the nation of tolerance. However, as of now we are facing threat of terrorism from extremists around the globe and are on the verge of a recession if not a depression. The way I see it, instead of trying to root out terrorists, Obama wants to pamper all the terrorists(based on his rhetoric)in hope that they will leave us alone. He also wants to socialize health care. His grand-scheme economic plan was voted down in the senate recently with overwhelming votes of 97 to 0. He had fist denied that he never heard of Rev. Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric only later to admit that he might have heard several times after one of the reporters confirmed that he had in fact attended one of the sermons where hateful comments were made by Rev. Wright.
Are Americans at point in history where we elect a president because of his or her great speeches without questioning about issues,experiences,integrity, or judgment for that matter.
Obama has based his campaign on hope, change, and sound judgment. So far he failed on sound judgment based on what I have mentioned above(not to mention his association with Tony Rezko). Should we judge Obama based on the company he keeps? When it comes to change, every single administration is a change from each preceding or succeeding administration. How will he(the most liberal Senator) united the country with his plan for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, his socialized healthcare plan, his failed-economic plan etc… As for the hope message, we all hope every politicians we elect will carry out their promises but other than that I do not know what else we should hope for. I am a realist, and I know the tension over race will not go away in our lifetime. Are we willing to risk everything at this point in this great nation’s history for the sake of change?
PS. I enjoy your writing immensely, but I strongly disagree with your choice of candidate.
There’s a lot in your comment that I could spend time unraveling, but one thing stuck out in particular:
“The way I see it, instead of trying to root out terrorists, Obama wants to pamper all the terrorists(based on his rhetoric)in hope that they will leave us alone.”
This is a bunch of BS. Obama has said over and over again, and even said last night on Larry King again, that he wants to pull out of Iraq so that we CAN FOCUS on defeating our actual threat: terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has said that he’s for US strikes on terrorists cells in Pakistan, etc. So, you’re absolutely wrong on that matter. You show a tendency to follow the media/popular narrative on things (Obama’s a “talker” not a “doer”) rather than actual facts.
About Wright–are kidding me? Get over it. He has consistently shown himself to be a man who works hard for all people in this country; if you want to condemn him based on what his former pastor said, then that’s your loss. Those statements were taken out of context, 30-second tidbits out of 20+ years of sermons. I could be made to look like Hitler if someone did that to me. BS BS BS. And a new poll shows that the majority of Americans do not believe that Obama feels the same way as Wright.
Rezko–do you watch the news at all? come on. Obama sat down with the editorial board from the Chicago Trib and answered EVERY SINGLE question they had about Rezko, and they completely exonerated him: http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/obama-answers-rezko-questions-in.html
He shows consistent good judgment, he’s intelligent, he’s thoughtful, and he wants the best for this country. It’s one thing to say you support another candidate for whatever reason, that’s fine, but trying to diminish Obama based on this BS is ridiculous.
Actually realist
you dont agree with me. I dislike obama because he is too much into giving away our rights as
Hi realist,
You wrote “Are Americans at point in history where we elect a president because of his or her great speeches without questioning about issues,experiences,integrity, or judgment for that matter”
Economic plan became unsuitable yet due to leg. procedure it got the to senate floor. Obama himself voted against that bill hence 97-0.
Talking about great speeches: Great speeches only inspire people who are independent thinkers deciding what’s best for the country and not necessarily for the party they are associated with. Political label barey tracks people’s current affiliation. Issues, experience,and integrity can be part of the judgment. He’s shown to have leadership judgment that goes above and beyond trivialization and division by 1) running a PERFECT campaign 2) showing the transparency (i.e. tax return) 3) consistency (i.e. changing the mindset instead of using deadly force : so yes stupid guy uses force for short term result, smart leader uses brain for long-term effect)
This is the opportunity for you, in your life time, to elect this great leader that we’re so blessed to have.
Obama 08